Analog vs. Digital - a neurologist's take

[Bill_Janssen (Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)]

@Martin_Webster

What we need is a system which certifies that the original master is accurately reproduced in our home.

Well, if transparency and fidelity to the original is what you’re after, yes. But many people prefer the interesting changes rung on the original by vinyl, or tube amps.

@Martin_Kelly

there’s no way in a million years an analogue vinyl record could ‘beat’ the digital version.

@grossmsj

there are so many steps between when sound vibration comes out of its source to our ears via recorded sound

Interesting thread at PS Audio about this. One phrase in the comments really struck me:

“Audiophiles” are trained to the sound of their system

People do hate change.

@Neil_Russell

And DSD sounds noticeably better that 192/24. It isn’t because of bias, as I don’t know the Res before I determine the improvement.

@jussi_laako made an interesting comment about this. His point, if I understood it correctly, was that even though all the necessary information may be present in 16/44.1 recordings, it takes a lot of computation (mainly digital filters) to accurately reproduce the analog waveform captured therein. Some delta-sigma DACs have relatively limited resources, compared to general purpose computers, and therefore use relatively simplified filter algorithms, so their reproduction when fed PCM inputs can be somewhat inaccurate for some signals. Thus he recommends doing conversion to high-sample-rate DSD in the computer (presumably ideally with HQPlayer ) before sending the data to the DAC for reconstruction of the analog wave form.

I do hope I summarized that correctly.